1On December 27, 2018, the respondent (“D.H.”) was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Akeem Pope (“A.P.”) when they were involved in an automobile accident. D.H. sought and received insurance benefits from the applicant (“TD”) pursuant to the Schedule.¹ This application arises out of TD’s allegation that D.H., A.P., and Maxine Dawkins (“Dawkins”) misrepresented that Dawkins was also in the vehicle, although she was not. A.P. and Dawkins also received benefits from TD and are the subject of related applications at the Tribunal.

2D.H. applied to this Tribunal after TD denied her request for further benefits and TD notified her it was seeking a repayment.² TD responded by seeking an order requiring D.H. to repay the benefits paid to her on the grounds that she made willful misrepresentations about Dawkins. D.H. did not appear for this hearing, nor did A.P. appear for his related hearing held back-to-back to this one. After considering the evidence, I find that TD established D.H. made wilful misrepresentations, but under the Schedule’s specific provisions, TD is not entitled to a repayment from D.H. of her benefits.

ISSUES[^3]

3The preliminary issues to be decided are:

1. Is D.H. liable to repay TD $9,752.00?

2. Has D.H. committed a material misrepresentation pursuant to s. 53 of the Schedule?

3. Is TD entitled to interest on any overdue re-payment of benefits?

ResULT

4TD has established that D.H. made a willful misrepresentation to TD (Issue 2), but the Schedule does not grant the Tribunal authority to order D.H. to repay the benefits, because the payments “paid to the person” - i.e., D.H. - were not “as a result of willful misrepresentation” (Issue 1). Thus, no interest is due (Issue 3).

ANALYSIS

Can the Tribunal proceed in either matter in absence of D.H.?

5Yes. S. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter S.22, provides that a tribunal may proceed in a party’s absence if notice of the hearing was given. I am satisfied that D